Potential energy in an external field

AI Thread Summary
An external field refers to a field that is not generated by the charges present within it. When two point charges are placed in such an external field, the field does not originate from either of the charges. The potential energy of the system is derived by considering the work done in bringing each charge from infinity to its respective position, accounting for both the external field and the field due to the other charge. The discussion emphasizes that the fields of the charges are negligible and that the charges cannot be brought together simultaneously without altering the potential energy expression. The contributions from different sources in the field simply add up, maintaining the integrity of the external field's characteristics.
gracy
Messages
2,486
Reaction score
83
External field means field does not belong to or is not of the charges present in it,right?So,if there is a system of two point charges and these charges are present in an external field ,it means this external field is not produced by any of the charges present,right?
Then there is a derivation for Potential energy in an external field
consider two charges ##q_1##, ##q_2## located at ##r_1## and ##r_2## respectively in an external field E. The work done in bringing charge ##q_1##from infinity to r1 is given by ##q_1## V(r1). Similarly, the work done in bringing ##q_2## to ##r_2##, the work done is not only against the external field but also against the field due to ##q_1##.

Work done against the external field = ##q_2## V (r2) and
Work done against the field due to charge ##q_1##

img64.gif

where 'r12' is the distance between charge '##q_1##' and '##q_2##'.

By the superposition principle for field, we add the work done on ##q_2## against the two fields.
img65.gif


As the path is independent of work, the potential energy of two charges q1, q2 located at r1 and r2 in an external field is given by
potential-energy-two-charges-external-field.gif
(1`)

Here fields of ##q_1##and ##q_2## are negligible.Right?And we have to bring ##q_1##from infinity to ##r_1## first and then ##q_2## from infinity to ##r_2## we just can't pick the two charges together because by doing that we won't get the same expression for Potential energy in an external field as we got in( 1)
Right?

I have underlined my questions!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
gracy said:
External field means field does not belong to or is not of the charges present in it,right?So,if there is a system of two point charges and these charges are present in an external field ,it means this external field is not produced by any of the charges present,right?
Yes and Yes. The second Yes is somewhat superfluous :rolleyes:.

consider two charges q1 q_1 , q2 q_2 located at r 1 r_1 and r 2 r_2 respectively in an external field E. The work done in bringing charge q1 q_1 from infinity to r1 is given by q1 q_1 V(r1). Similarly, the work done in bringing q2 q_2 to r 2 r_2 , the work done is not only against the external field but also against the field due to q1
Funny wording for a question in a non-homework subforum. You resent the template that much ? Answer: yes, you are correct (as far as I can judge the exercise).

Here fields of q1 q_1 and q2 q_2 are negligible.Right?And we have to bring q1 q_1 from infinity to r 1 r_1 first and then q2 q_2 from infinity to r 2 r_2 we just can't pick the two charges together because by doing that we won't get the same expression for Potential energy in an external field as we got in( 1)
Right?
I have underlined my questions!
Yes, you have underlined and italicized. A bit too much of the good stuff if you ask me; legibility suffers a little. And there's that imperative "Right?" again...and yet again...

The answers, this time, are:

No (first "Right?") . The exercise doesn't say anything about the strength of the external field, nor about the magnitude of r12. There is nothing to ignore.

No (second "Right?") . There are three terms in the energy and three ways you can obtain the final configuration. Physics requires that the three paths require the same energy. You sure can first position the two charges together at a cost of ##\ V = {1\over 4\pi\epsilon_0}\,{q_0 q_1\over r_{12}^2}\ ## and then move this ensemble from outside the external field to inside. But that step is just a little hard to imagine.
Note you first mention an external field E and then an external field V. Perhaps this is an exercise you invented yourself ayway ?

(Some external ##\vec E## fields have issues with potential at infinity, especially if they are uniform and omnipresent...)​

--
 
  • Like
Likes ehild
BvU said:
The exercise doesn't say anything about the strength of the external field, nor about the magnitude of r12
Will not the fields of these two ##q_1## and ##q_2## charges affect the :External field"?
 
No they won't. That's the nice thing about fields: the contributions from various sources simply add up.
And since we aren't being told how the external field comes about, we don't have to worry about rearranging mirror charges or anything like that. The external field is what it is and stays what it is. That's how it comes to be named 'external'. Otherwise it wouold be 'internal' to the scope under study :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes ehild
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top